Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The Mosaic Purus-Manu is located at the headwaters of the Amazon. It contains high terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity in a large relatively intact forest landscape.
Evidence B:High level importance for species and forests, as well as KBAs dominanting the proposed area.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: According to the irrecoverable carbon map, this region is located in a high source area.
Evidence B:High level of carbon content and important forests.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The mosaic contains several indigenous reserves and several native communities. Some reserves are under a national agency jurisdiction, not fully under an independent IPLC governance system.
Evidence B:The national Peruvian legislation about indigenous rights over their territories is not the strongest and clearest. Nevertheless, there are several levels of recognition of IPLC rights over their land and natural resources in the area. The project proposes to exactly strengthen the IPLC governance, to face incoming threats.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Yes, it explains the number and diversity of ethnic groups present in the region.
Evidence B:High level of social diversity, besides severl non contacted indigenous groups and others in initial levels of contact.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Although the area is located in a remote region, there are incursions of illegal logging, mining and other extractive activities that affect the integrity of the region. Action is needed
Evidence B:Considering the remoteness, there are not high level threats. But there are several threats around the project focus area, such as timber and oil exploration or exploitation, due to the legal room for such activities, besides the ilegal ones. For those, we could consider moderate threats. Nevertheless, the law authorising a new road to be built across the mosaic could bring much stronger and other threats in the medium to the longer term. For this I decided for medium-high threats level.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: There is a legal framework but it needs to be improved and implemented.
Evidence B:The national Peruvian legislation about indigenous rights over natural resources is not most complete one. Nevertheless, there are several levels of recognition of IPLC rights over their land and natural resources in the area. And the project proposes to exactly strengthen that, engaging better national institutions and engaging the regional ones.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Yes, there is some government support but the balance of power seems to be shaky. This project could correct this.
Evidence B:It exists, but is not regular, as in most countries. In Peruvian case, there is a need to go beyond speach and define good legal framework and to really implement decisions.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: There are some conservation projects in the region, but few IPLC-led.
Evidence B:There are several projects for several years in Peruvian Amazon and in Madre de Dios province and some ones in High Purus area for some years.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Yes, there are other projects funded by Moore Foundation, Land Tenure Facility, etc. that are aligned with this project and can help provide a larger impact.
Evidence B:The proposal mentions some, more directly related to SPDA, but there are others to support the national government recognised protected areas.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Yes, it is well aligned. There are letters of support from grassroots organizations that have a large impact in this mosaic.
Evidence B:The project proposes to strengthen the IPLC governance and the indigenous-related elements in national and subnational governmental institutions and departments.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The theory of change is clear: strengthening indigenous organizations , establish sustainable use based on cultural particularities and provide a legal framework to recognize and register indigenous knowledge. No particular timeline was established
Evidence B:Good enough for the level expected at this time.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: There is a good articulation of the threats but there is not a very clear link on how they will be addressed by only strengthening indigenous capacity.
Evidence B:As any project, this one alone will not be enogh, but it is a good step on the right direction, and focused on the IPLC more than most.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: If the budget details a significant amount of the resources implemented in the field, yes - it is enough.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The Eol shows a few possibilities of funding within Peru through scientific sources (Concytec) and other development sources. The alliance with Profonanpe can contribute to obtaining matching funds.
Evidence B:There are some directly related, but potentially others not so well defined yet or potential to be raised.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: This region is large and with a lot of potential to secure global benefits.
Evidence B:There is some doubt on exactly the limits of the intervention are, to be clarified in a full project proposal phase.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: There are several indigenous groups and communities in this region. The Eol illustrates this complexity and aims to address it to harness high conservation benefits.
Evidence B:Strong focus con strengthening cultural and livelihood elements of the communities.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: By focusing on governance and the quality of indigenous organizations, this project seems to offer high promise.
Evidence B:The IPLC improved governance and the national and subnational governmental institutions more committed to the IPLC issues are good enough elements for a long term strategy. Nevertheless, again, as any project, this one alone will not be enogh (despite being a good step on the right direction).
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The Eol provides convincing information on this regard.
Evidence B:Good enough, although there is a need to go more into facts (concrete legislation and action), for what the project could help.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: This project will build on efforts underway. The Eol demonstrates how they will do so.
Evidence B:Not strongly defined from within.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: It is especially of note that the project proposes to work with Indecopi to register products developed by indigenous knowledge. This added protection could add to key benefits that can be scaled up within Peru and in other places.
Evidence B:The Purus-Manu landscape/mosaic is important enough to be able to leverage change, through the national and subnational governmental institutions and departments change. The improved IPLC governance could also set a better case in Peruvian and in the whole Pan-Amazon.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: SPDA will work with AIDESEP. Also, they plan to include grassroots organizations that have provided letters of support.
Evidence B:There is no real grassroots associations engaged at this point (and possibly this would not be possible yet). There are two levels of IPLC organizations (at the sub-Amazon and at the Peruvian Amazon level), one of which is partnering the project proposal and the other is presented as an asociated already defined. The other partner is not IPLC organization. Nevertheless, considering the proposal, with legal and policy elements to advocacy to the national and subnational governmental institutions, the NGO project co-leader have very good conditions to contribute. More than only focusing on capacity development for natural resources management, nature conservation and communities self-organization, strengthening the IPLC own capacity related to project management could be enhanced.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Both proponent organizations are leaders in their fields of operation.
Evidence B:At subnational level (Amazon and Madre de Dios province), yes. Locally, it is not so clear (but probably it would not be easy).
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The Eol shows that there has been acceptable negotiation among different parties to design the project.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: SPDA has full capacity to implement the project. It is expected that AIDESEP will become stronger with this experience.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: SPDA does have high project management capacity. AIDESEP has a history of facing challenges to be effective project and financial managers. Rainforest Foundation Norway should be a reference for this aspect of the work.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Yes for SPDA.
Evidence B:NA